Seems to me the real problem with the lack of fairness and the rise of what can only be termed Hate Radio, was embodied in Nat Hentoff's strident, righteous, "let's-punch-somebody" tone.
Like Mark Levine, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly and the others, the appeal to emotion over reason, and outrage over discourse, all while wrapped in a super-patriotic costume, is poisonous to American standards of civility.
Jul. 02 2007 01:20 PM
Score: 0/0
Mark Kolakowski
from Fair Haven, NJ
Brian,
Caught your segment today on the Fairness Doctrine, and heard you brush off the caller who noted that the vast majority of callers to NPR shows represent leftward viewpoints. My jaw dropped. You can't be serious. I've been a regular listener of yours for over 2 years, and, while I appreciate the sober tone of your show and the occasional interesting nuggets of info, your airtime certainly lists 45 degrees or more to port, based on both your selection of guests and on the views expressed by callers. All too often, when you have multiple guests, I am dismayed by your tendency to represent only gradations of opinion on the left. Only once can I ever recall your having a lone guest who was, broadly speaking, on the right. Lone guests who are of leftward persuasion are, by contrast, rather common. I do not pretend to have listened to every minute of every show for 2 years, but a half hour a day 4 days a week for two years should be a pretty fair sample of your content.
Less frequently, I also catch parts of Leonard Lopate, and he has a similar bias in choice of guests.
I did listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on the radio every now and then in the period 1996-2001 (when their airtimes meshed with my drive times, and before I got worn out by the excessive advertising time), and I daresay, in all seriousness, that leftward callers were rather more common on their shows than rightward callers are on yours.
Regards, Mark Kolakowski Fair Haven, NJ
Jun. 26 2007 03:38 PM
Score: 0/0
jawbone
from Parsippany, NJ
In defense of a fairness doctrine concept, had it been in place during the run up to the Iraq Invasion, it's possible the administration would not have been able to pull off this fiasco (and, yes, I opposed it then, but there was barely anything on the air giving any voice to my point of view).
It is now, seemingly, a matter of free speech being available only to those with lots of money and control over the microphones. Yes, there was excellent reporting during the rush to war, but it was usually relegated to the back pages or hidden in the middle paragraphs. Much more was made of the administration's statements and arguments.
MSNBC, btw, did remove Phil Donohue's show from its schedule--and a memo did get released which made it clear it was an economic move based on fear of being seen as not supporting the war. The show, at that time, was getting, iirc, the best viewership of the cable channel. Now, the fairness doctrine would not affect cable as of current thinking, but I think the idea that it is fair and manadated to allow competing ideas and even actual facts to be broadcast would also affect the cable programming.
Maybe not....
Would a fairness doctrine work? I still need to analyze the topic more, but wanted to raise these ideas.
I find the first comment compelling in its logic. But, what we have now, with, for example, the Sunday talk shows still having far more Republican guests than Democrats--and no real liberal voices--also worrisome.
Jun. 26 2007 12:18 PM
Score: 0/0
Christopher Hart
from Connecticut
Dear Mr. Lehrer,
As a frequent listener to your show, I think you missed some major points in discussing the Fairness Doctrine in your recent show. For example, if airing of opposing points of view is mandated by law, who is to say what is a legitimate point of view? Do we really want anti-global warming commentaries mandated by law? 9-11 conspiracy theorists? Creationists?
In addition, what about your own station? Shall we have a government official with a time clock assigned there, to make sure there are an equal amount of conservative commentaries, which would lessen your current programming by about half? And who would decide which of the commentaries were liberal, and which were conservative? Who will appoint the "quote-unquote" completely unbiased political appointee to decide this? So, has it come to this? Are we really going to allow, in America, the government define for us what is liberal and what is conservative? Don't you find that scary?
Sincerely,
Christopher Hart
Jun. 26 2007 12:07 PM
Score: 0/0
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Learn more. Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
posting.
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's
Privacy Policy and
Terms Of Use.
Comments [4]
Seems to me the real problem with the lack of fairness and the rise of what can only be termed Hate Radio, was embodied in Nat Hentoff's strident, righteous, "let's-punch-somebody" tone.
Like Mark Levine, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly and the others, the appeal to emotion over reason, and outrage over discourse, all while wrapped in a super-patriotic costume, is poisonous to American standards of civility.
Brian,
Caught your segment today on the Fairness Doctrine, and heard you brush off the caller who noted that the vast majority of callers to NPR shows represent leftward viewpoints. My jaw dropped. You can't be serious. I've been a regular listener of yours for over 2 years, and, while I appreciate the sober tone of your show and the occasional interesting nuggets of info, your airtime certainly lists 45 degrees or more to port, based on both your selection of guests and on the views expressed by callers. All too often, when you have multiple guests, I am dismayed by your tendency to represent only gradations of opinion on the left. Only once can I ever recall your having a lone guest who was, broadly speaking, on the right. Lone guests who are of leftward persuasion are, by contrast, rather common. I do not pretend to have listened to every minute of every show for 2 years, but a half hour a day 4 days a week for two years should be a pretty fair sample of your content.
Less frequently, I also catch parts of Leonard Lopate, and he has a similar bias in choice of guests.
I did listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on the radio every now and then in the period 1996-2001 (when their airtimes meshed with my drive times, and before I got worn out by the excessive advertising time), and I daresay, in all seriousness, that leftward callers were rather more common on their shows than rightward callers are on yours.
Regards,
Mark Kolakowski
Fair Haven, NJ
In defense of a fairness doctrine concept, had it been in place during the run up to the Iraq Invasion, it's possible the administration would not have been able to pull off this fiasco (and, yes, I opposed it then, but there was barely anything on the air giving any voice to my point of view).
It is now, seemingly, a matter of free speech being available only to those with lots of money and control over the microphones. Yes, there was excellent reporting during the rush to war, but it was usually relegated to the back pages or hidden in the middle paragraphs. Much more was made of the administration's statements and arguments.
MSNBC, btw, did remove Phil Donohue's show from its schedule--and a memo did get released which made it clear it was an economic move based on fear of being seen as not supporting the war. The show, at that time, was getting, iirc, the best viewership of the cable channel. Now, the fairness doctrine would not affect cable as of current thinking, but I think the idea that it is fair and manadated to allow competing ideas and even actual facts to be broadcast would also affect the cable programming.
Maybe not....
Would a fairness doctrine work? I still need to analyze the topic more, but wanted to raise these ideas.
I find the first comment compelling in its logic. But, what we have now, with, for example, the Sunday talk shows still having far more Republican guests than Democrats--and no real liberal voices--also worrisome.
Dear Mr. Lehrer,
As a frequent listener to your show, I think you missed some major points in discussing the Fairness Doctrine in your recent show. For example, if airing of opposing points of view is mandated by law, who is to say what is a legitimate point of view? Do we really want anti-global warming commentaries mandated by law? 9-11 conspiracy theorists? Creationists?
In addition, what about your own station? Shall we have a government official with a time clock assigned there, to make sure there are an equal amount of conservative commentaries, which would lessen your current programming by about half? And who would decide which of the commentaries were liberal, and which were conservative? Who will appoint the "quote-unquote" completely unbiased political appointee to decide this? So, has it come to this? Are we really going to allow, in America, the government define for us what is liberal and what is conservative? Don't you find that scary?
Sincerely,
Christopher Hart
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.